Nature

[Godschild]

(17th February 2012 02:49)Justtristo Wrote:  There was a time when the complexity of lifeforms was a quite plausible argument for the existence of a creator. However after the publication of the Origin of the Species it ceased to be a legitimate argument for the existence of a creator. Since the Origin of the Species outlined a plausible and scientifically supported explanation for the complexity of lifeforms.

Those who still use this argument are either ignorant of evolution by natural selection or they understand it, thereby are being dishonest and hypocritical.

I'm not ignorant of evolution nor natural selection, I do not believe they go hand in hand, evolution of species into other species is not a believable process. What is apparent, there is limited change in a specie to adapt to the environment.

[KichigaiNeko]

It's OK G-C...evolution doesn't need yours or anyone else's belief. It works in total disregard to you me and anything we can dream up.

[brotherlylove]

(17th February 2012 02:49)Justtristo Wrote:  There was a time when the complexity of lifeforms was a quite plausible argument for the existence of a creator. However after the publication of the Origin of the Species it ceased to be a legitimate argument for the existence of a creator. Since the Origin of the Species outlined a plausible and scientifically supported explanation for the complexity of lifeforms.

Those who still use this argument are either ignorant of evolution by natural selection or they understand it, thereby are being dishonest and hypocritical.

I commend Darwins discovery, which is that species adapt over time to their environment. Speciation is proven by the empirical evidence. However, to say that all life descended from a common ancestor requires a bit more proof, and Darwin knew it. That is why he said this:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The situation hasn't changed. In fact, we have less examples of a transitional series than we did in Darwins time, due to most of them being debunked. In horse evolution, for instance, they found modern horse fossils buried under their most ancient relatives.

So, according to darwin himself, without the fossil evidence his theory about common descent has a valid objection. You also have the fact that what we do find in the fossil record actually contraidcts all of the predictions of neo-darwinism. Instead of simple to complex, we find complex and diverse right out of the gate. The highest order (phylum cordata) and as all its major divisions were there in the cambrian. We have less diversity today than we did then. The tree of life simply does not reflect reality.

So without the fossil evidence, and evidence actually contradicting the predictions of the theory, macro evolution is dead in the water.

[KichigaiNeko]

You know...you cretinists make me think that perhaps you are just leaks from Discworld sometimes

[brotherlylove]

(17th February 2012 03:36)KichigaiNeko Wrote:  You know...you cretinists make me think that perhaps you are just leaks from Discworld sometimes

[thesummerqueen]

I feel like we need to have a write up of evolution, fossils and geology we can end a thread with every time this happens.

[KichigaiNeko]

Agreed

---

Can we make it so?

[brotherlylove]

(17th February 2012 03:51)thesummerqueen Wrote:  I feel like we need to have a write up of evolution, fossils and geology we can end a thread with every time this happens.

Please do. I'll be happy to show you how vaporous your evidence actually is at that time.

[thesummerqueen]

Please go start in the dino thread you'll find in my profile - much of the background material you need is already eloquently written up by orogenicman. We're all tired of repeating ourselves here.

[brotherlylove]

(17th February 2012 03:58)thesummerqueen Wrote:  Please go start in the dino thread you'll find in my profile - much of the background material you need is already eloquently written up by orogenicman. We're all tired of repeating ourselves here.

If you think you have a case that's fine, but to claim the issue is settled is ridiculous. Issues aren't settled in science; if they were they would still believe in the steady state theory as was brought up earlier. There are legitimate concerns about neo-darwian evolution, and there has lately been a move by evolutionists to move away from the fossil record altogether (im guessing because it is actually harmful to their case). Richard Dawkins even said they don't need the fossil record any more (which I take as an admission of defeat). Well, of course you need the fossil record. That's the only hard evidence you're going to find for common descent, and if it isn't there, it isn't anywhere.

I'll examine the thread but I be will surprised if I find something I haven't seen before.